On 11/7/06, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> Right. For the record, when I said I would work on "trunk" I never
> committed myself to an exact date.
> Everything within the time range 2.3.0 + 6 months is unreastic. Let's
> not hurry.
I'm really sorry to hear this: I hoped "my" vote was clear about this
Here is what you replied:
-----
> About the "next-minor" release as described above:
[+0] Indifferent (+0 and -0 are welcome to understand the feelings)
> About the "next-major" release as described above:
[+1] I will work on that release
------
The vote also made it clear this differences beteen next-major and
next-greater:
"next-major":
- based on current trunk
- storage and config.xml compatible with 2.3.0
- ETA: branch on Dec 2006/Jan 2007, release on Mar 2007
"next-greater":
- based on current trunk
- not backward compatible
- ETA: not planned.
And it also included this sentence:
"Please vote +1 only if you are willing to put concrete efforts on the
release. "
Having a result with an unanimous +1 for next-major made me think we
have 6 active committers for next-major trying to achieve the ETA
described (Mar 2007 for next-major final)
I understand from this message that you instead are +0 on next-major
(with the additional doubts about feasibility) and +1 on working on
next-greater. I hope the other voters understood better the vote and
they don't think that Mar 2007 for next-major is unrealistic, otherwise
we have a problem in our voting process.
No. My vote stands. With the exception of the release date.
It really doesn't matter if it is ready March or July or September.
What's important for me is: to work on trunk and keep compatibility.
I am sure you are not saying that if I don't commit myself to a date,
I cannot work on it.
If this was not clear in the vote I invite you and any other committer
in the same shoes to resurrect that voting thread and cast new votes,
because otherwise here we have people working on roadmaps that have a
"false" consensus.
A "roadmap" involves not only dates, but also features, architectural
goals, run-time goals etc. Why do we talk about dates, version
numbering and subversion branches first and features afterwards?
It should be the other way round.
Bernd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
